So a person I'm close to on DU (well close for the internet anyway) made me look at something from another perspective today. I made them a promise and want to make sure I wasn't talking out of my ass. I'm seeking the help of my fellow Obama supporters.

The lines have been drawn, we are spinning our wheels, no one is going to convince me to switch allegiances and I'm not going to convince anyone else. What I would like to do is see if DU'ers are willing to let it all go at some point and get behind the Dem candidate in August or whenever they are selected.

My friend has serious reservations about Obama's ties to homophobes. While I may not understand it the way they do I can make a promise to all in the GLBT community, as can the rest of the Obama supporters. We have your back.

It doesn't seem like much in this climate but I, and I would hope the rest of the Obama supporters, would like to say that no matter who gets into office we still believe in equal rights for all, we aren't about to let any administration reverse any gains made, or sit on their asses doing nothing when it comes to equal rights for the GLBT community. DU has always been vigilant in it's support of gay rights and I would hope that people don't let their support for their candidate get in the way of their common sense.

Of course this is all just MHO FWIW. Which these day's isn't much...

P.P.S. I've given and received my quota of petty insults for one day, so please, give me a break and don't shoot the dove.

at least we have a jumping off point. I realize I'm not going to change anyones mind. What my post said, or what I thought it said was, if I was wrong and Obama turned out to be a guy who was going to sit on his ass about gay rights that I would do what I could to make sure he didn't get away with it. You want to march? I'm there. Donations? I'm there. Petitions? I'm there. Help? I'm there(I've done a bit of work with the gay community in Denver). Whatever you guys need. I'm right behind you.

That's all this was, a way to say I understand that you can't vote for Obama in the primary but if you are stuck with him in the general, I will do whatever I can to ease your burden. That's all.

13. I think that DOMA and DADT will be repealed under both Obama and Clinton. I don't think that McCain

gives a rat's ass about us.

I think civil unions will be on the table under both dems, but it will be up to us to hold their feet to the fire. Unless we stick together and keep that issue at the forefront, I don't think Hillary or Barack will be rushing out to pass legislation about civil unions.

While I, myself, am not a lesbian, most of the people that I Iove in my life represent one of the letters in GLBT, it's not a matter of if, but when, civil rights for the GLBT community are recognized in this country.

I fully support equal rights for everyone, and I will back GLBT to the fullest.

What I'm having trouble with is this: How can we expect either candidate to ignore homophobes, while trying to uphold GLBT issues, and get laws passed? Are they not going to need to talk to homophobes also and convince them?

I don't think we should be exluding anyone in America from having their voices heard in a Democracy that is trying to bring about change.

We should not blame Hillary or Obama.

We should try and fix the mindset that got us there in the first place, and that would include seeking tolerance at a minimum, from homophobes.

Obama believes in the Constitution of the United States, and will seek equal rights for all.

16. It wasn't really offensive, I'm sure. I know some people in the T category who joke about being

the last, so sometimes people change the order for that reason. Its not serious. Maybe someone just wanted to make a jab because they thought it meant that you aren't familiar with the issues...and that you, therefore, don't care. Don't worry. Just speak in good faith and most of us will give you the benefit of the doubt. I think we are just very sensitive about these things because we are afraid of being thrown under the bus. 2004 was pretty bad.

29. Oh fuck, you really think that saying GBLT is what got people pissed off at you?

Seriously man, you got McClurkin's name wrong, and basically made a fucking cheap shot against GLBT people with your post! You're about as pro-gay as Robertson, take your apology and shove it up your ass!

14. I don't think it will happen. Civil unions, yes, but not marriage. I'm fine with that because I

think marriage should be the business of the church. Maybe more and more secular people will start having civil unions instead of marriages. If some bigots want to keep that stupid word "marriage" all to themselves, fine. I just want the same rights and privileges that come with marriage and I don't care what its called. I know that there will always be people who hate us. Guess what? People can get on their radio shows or stand in front of their churches and say whatever they want about us. Like I said, all I want for my partner and I is the same rights and privileges as a married straight couple.

I don't really have a dog in the fight: I'm not marrying any one of any gender, and if I did, I don't know what a Buddhist marriage ceremony even looks like in my tradition! Still, it is clearly any issue of equity.

To the extent I can make any statement whatsoever, yep, what you say makes sense to me. 'Marriage' belongs in church; it makes no sense to me that the state has ever even gotten involved, and certainly no sense that there are any legal rights or privileges dependent on being 'married' in a church.

20. I think my opinions on this were formed after living in Russia and Spain. Russia's wedding

ceremonies are done in a govt buliding called the Palace of Weddings. If the couple want to go to the church after the ceremony, that's their business. It doesn't affect the rights and privileges they get after their state ceremony.

Spain, of course, has gay marriage. But its still a state thing. Like visiting a Justice of the Peace.

27. It's still a state thing. Of course, because we're talking about legal marriage.

Religious institutions- like the Catholic Church- wouldn't have to marry anyone they don't want to, any more than they do now. Hell, it's legal for divorced people to re-marry legally, but I don't think they can get religiously "married" by the catholic church.

People want to conflate the two, but they're two different things called the same word.

28. But the state is already involved, and the legal rights are not dependent upon any church.

Atheists can get married. Heterosexual couples can get married, legally, at city hall. It has nothing to do with churches or anything of the sort.

As I said elsewhere in this thread, the Catholic Church doesn't "permit" divorced people to remarry any more than they permit gay couples to; but that has no bearing on whether divorced people can LEGALLY wed.

26. Yes, but you know what? Marriage is already a secular as well as church institution. Too late.

I respect the desire to have equivalent legal rights and not care what they're called, though. As a straight married person, it's not really my place to expect that you wait until people are 'ready' to accept gays being -gasp!- "married". My take is, full equality. No apologies. Personally, I think the bigots can fuck off. Other peoples' lives aren't their business.

And the joke is on them, anyway- because gays and lesbians can ALREADY get "married" in certain religious institutions. Oh noes!

Whoever gets nominated, I will demand that that person actively fight against all tendencies in this society to marginalize, stigmatize, abuse, scapegoat or in any way mistreat any person anywhere because of their sexual orientation.

take a serious look at their party affiliation. IMO, equal rights for the GLBT community should be a no-brainer for anyone that considers themselves a democrat. We are all humans, we should all have the same legal rights. period.

30. I might give you a break, other Obama supporters, on the other hand...

not so much. With all the claims of "faux outrage" to many saying McClurkin was "raised to believe that way", or just being completely oblivious as to why the actions of the Obama Campaign were offensive, a lot of people on this board, many Obama supporters and even some Clinton supporters, have shown themselves to be no friend to GLBT people at all. Many comments bordered on the homophobic, and those that did go over to that side ended up being deleted and quite a few ended up getting TSed for that shit. Others have squeaked by, but mostly by ignoring these types of threads entirely.

I started out Edwards, and had to decide between the two of them. A lifelong theatre girl, I was shocked at BO's winky wonky anti gay stance. He refuses to get his picture taken with Gavin Newsome in spite of the fact that Newsome has attended three or four fundraisers for BO. BO shared the stage with homophobe McClurkin, and TRUST ME there was no big reconciling gay speech that followed.

So, please tell me who the "we" is, in "we got your back" with the BO campaign. It's been all sizzle, no steak, and I wish I were wrong about that. I'm straight, but not narrow, and I refuse to turn my back on my gay brothers and sisters when there is a perfectly viable alternative staring me right in the face.

I have always supported gay rights and have attended plenty of meetings and rallies where I'm the token straight female in the group. I have many gay friends and most of them have more faith in Hillary than Obama when it comes to GLBT issues.

Nevertheless, I do hope that whoever gets into the WH supports the GLBT community and does all he/she can to advance their cause.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.